Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 32

Serbia heart

I wanna discuss File:EuroServia.svg from Commons, it looks...wrong? It is from the official site but it seems to have gaps in between the stripes and the heart, the coat of arms looks...washed out? And when it's smaller (which is the intended use), it looks even worse (example). Should we revert it back to the previous version? ImStevan (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think we should revert it. While it is a small issue, I did notice it as soon as the page loaded. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made some small changes. The gaps are still there, but they should be less noticeable now (I'm not redrawing the whole thing).  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  00:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dates in Template:Infobox song contest national year

I don’t know if this has ever been discussed before, but at the moment “[country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [year]” articles with multiple-episode national finals generally have all the dates listed under the “selection date(s)” header, heats and semi-finals included. Wouldn’t it make more sense to only list the final date in the infobox (separating only the artist’s and song’s selection dates when they do not coicide) and leave the rest for the article body to specify? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've always understood this to be the date that the song and/or entrant were selected (plural since sometimes songs and artists are selected on different dates), not every date that the field of potential candidates was whittled down. I do not do that in practice though given the current convention. I'd be willing to entertain better defining what the field is for. Grk1011 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Future-class

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 15 § Abolishment of Future-class from the project quality assessment scale, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 26 § Project-independent quality assessments

Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we need to remove any non-standard classes like this one from your banner. Would you like to keep track of future events in a different way, perhaps by using a parameter |future=yes which would then populate a category. Alternatively it could just be removed and then the 31 articles in Category:Future-Class Eurovision articles would become "unassessed". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Future-class has now been removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What do we now do with all the ex-Future-class articles? The whole reason why that class existed is because these topics change so quickly you cannot meaningfully assign the article a class. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I came here to open a discussion about this because I had overlooked this page and saw the future-class assessment not being accepted anymore. A parameter should be implemented as was suggested above, then we can change the current class to start/stub etc. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added the parameter (example below), which will populate Category:WikiProject Eurovision articles related to the future. Let me know if you want to make any changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Might be an idea to include the date in the parameter (e.g. |future=Mar 2025 as this could be coded to be ignored once that date has been passed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Great job, thanks! That also looks like a good idea to me, but as long as the category has few articles it may not be necessary. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends on whether anyone is going to keep monitoring it I suppose ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo

I wanted to bring up something I've noticed before but never really bothered, something that another user brought to our attention on Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Serbia. The current map of the participating countries obviously shows Serbia colored in purple and Kosovo in grey, as one is competing, and the other is not. To avoid any conflict and remain impartial, the border between the two is a dotted line, intending to display the disputed status. The problem is, the dotted line essentially disappears when Serbia is colored dark purple, creating a solid border and negating the effect that the dotted line was trying to achieve, especially in smaller display sizes. To me it seems that either the border should either be a proper line since that's already what it appears to be when the map is displayed in the infobox, or Kosovo should be colored light purple, in a similar fashion to its colour on File:EurovisionParticipants.svg. Thoughts? — IмSтevan ^talk 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Edit: After playing around with the map for a bit, removing the line while keeping Kosovo colored grey yields a great result, with there clearly not being a hard border, but still separating the two using the colors of the map — IмSтevan ^talk 09:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirection of poorly sourced "country by year" articles

Somewhat related to the ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020, I wanted to gauge the project's feeling on many of the "[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [year]" articles. Many of these articles have already been redirected, particularly where an internal selection has taken place, how for articles related to older contests where a national selection was held, thinking pre-2000 in particular, these articles rely almost solely on fansites or forums for national final information, which could hardly be counted as reliable sources given they are essentially user-generated content. In a lot of cases these articles have also stagnated over several years, with no attempts to improve upon them. There are of course some examples where reliable sources are available for some countries, e.g. the UK and Sweden, however for many countries it will be a struggle to find suitable sources to verify the information presented. I propose that where no reliable sources can be found that these articles should be blanked-and-redirected to either the relevant country article or another suitable article, e.g. the competing song as in the case of most "Romania in Eurovision" articles from the 1990s and 2000s. This would help to ensure that what we are presenting within our Wikipedia articles is reliable and verifiable, while also leaving open the opportunity for these articles to be developed again in future should reliable sources appear. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that there is a serious WP:RS issue with many of the older articles. In particular, the natfinals.50webs.com WP:UGC ref is pretty rampant throughout the older articles. However, the lack of an article (even a stub) discourages editors from expanding articles. For some, they are unable to create pages without being confirmed users and for others, the need to figure out how to "unredirect" something is a barrier. As such, I think any action on this would need to be based on some sort of criteria for 'likely expansion'. We could of course use the official website for most major sections aside from selection process, however, with only that info, it's better as a redirect to the main country in article. I also think that many of the Junior contest articles in general have less information published about them and questionable notability. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that is certainly a valid point. I'm definitely not looking to advocate erecting barriers to creating or developing articles in the future, but we also need to be realistic that in some cases reliable information may just not be able to be found, especially for some participations going back decades. There are some good, reliable resources out there that can be used for some countries, e.g. https://eurovision.de has some useful (if at times limited) information on German national selections, and I am all for improving where possible, but the black-and-redirect route may just end up being the better option. I would agree that from a JESC standpoint the notability sometimes just isn't there to warrant a standalone article for every country, but I also think the same can be said for the adult contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Both options have their adavantages and disadvantages: Blanking out everything is clean and ensures that articles will be recreated only in case of notability and with verifiable sources. On the other hand, correct but badly sourced information will be wiped out and become invisible.

I think we should distinguish between 1) articles with hardly any (new) information which are unlikely to expand in the near future even with thorough research (i.e. especially in the case of internal selections), and 2) articles with information but which is poorly sourced or giving unreliable sources but which have the potential to be expanded/improved as it can be expected that there are reliable sources existing. The latter case is true especially for national finals/public selections as there often can be found newspaper articles / short notes in listings magazines etc. The only question then is a question of time and perseverance. (I'm focusing on the 50s at the moment and I'm pretty amazed sometimes on what actually can be found in printed sources but also in digitised newspapers on the web)

I think articles of case 1 could be "closed" immediately. But in order to give "case 2" articles a chance to be improved, we could set a "refimprove" template on each of those pages (if not already in place) and define a specific time period after which these articles should be also closed if no improvement has been made within X months/years.

In both cases, when blanking the pages, I would advocate for adding at least a note to the talk page which states why the page was blanked and that poorly sourced information is available in the version history so that people who want to recreate the article have a starting point for their research. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that there can be a distinction made between those two types of articles as you rightly point out. However, in the case of the second type, it is incumbent upon us to remove anything that is not verifiable per WP:BURDEN. A lot of material has been on Wikipedia now for decades and in many cases has not been touched in years, but I do see your point that it is worth providing a chance for improvements to be made.

A lot of the articles you classify as type 1 have already been redirected, or were created as redirects to begin with. I remember another user posted recently a table with all articles to facilitate future article creation, which you can find here: User:ActuallyNeverHappened02/Eurovision country-by-year table. As you see there are already a lot of redirected articles, and for certain countries these are almost entirely redirects.

I'm happy to put in the work to find suitable refs in the meantime for the existing articles, but I also believe that potentially the best thing to do is for any articles where suitable refs aren't found the respective material should be removed, which may result in redirection being the only viable option for those articles.

Regarding your last point, for any cases of redirects we can use Template:Notice to notify future editors of the reasoning for the redirect and location of edit history as you suggest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I think we agree on removing unsourced material and of redirecting pages where too few new information is left after the cleaning process. I hope my previous message didn't give the opposite impression. And I agree with using a tool like the Notice template as you suggest for keeping informed future editors.

The only question left for debate now, I think, is whether we define a certain time period after the article has been tagged with "More citations needed" or similar templates before we proceed with removing unsourced material. On the country by year pages (ESC) many of these templates were added in 2021, and now, two years later, are definitively ready for cleanup. Others still lack the template in spite of presenting the same situation. My personal opinion is that we should proceed in an orderly, defined manner to ensure a transparent process. So how about:

1) starting the cleaning process as suggested by you on pages tagged more than one year ago

2) tagging all other untagged pages which include badly sourced material and cleaning them after one year

This one year period should be enough to make it visible to every editor that there is an issue with the page and that there's the need of improving it. What do you think? --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, glad to hear we're on the same page! Yes I have noticed too that there is a mixed bag when it comes to adding the relevant templates to the articles. I'm happy to go with your suggestion of the year grace period from the adding of the relevant template and to remove any unsourced material from articles which have had those tags for over a year. I plan on doing some digging to find any suitable refs which can back up any of the content on the article, however if these cannot be found, and if the resulting removal of information results in the article makes what remains too small to support a stand-alone article, then redirection will be the needed course of action. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I will also continue digging and gathering relevant books and publications, particularly for the early years. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi! To ensure that as many articles can be supported as possible, I think it'd be a good idea to a) create an organized list of articles that need improvement by priority and b) organize targeted editing drives, like a simpler form of the GOCE ones (e.g. this month we're doing the 1991 articles, etc.). We could also promote these to other relevant WikiProjects or editors who are active on these articles with invite templates, or on the WP:CBB and WP:WikiProject Report. I'd like to help out with sourcing and adding info but the more hands the better and at the moment I'm not sure which articles to start with-- perhaps an area on our homepage with the list would be helpful to editors.

As a side note, I have to point out that "too small to support a stand-alone article" is a subjective standard. So long as the article passes the relevant notability guidelines I can't think of a policy-based reason to redirect-- if the goal is improvement, most Wiki-casual ESC editors will not know how to undo the redirect and the chances of improvement drop to 0%. Still, I think getting an actual start on improvement is more important than discussing hypothetical action, so if there's anything we need to get started with that, I'd be happy to help. (And if any of the articles do get redirected, as per WP:RPURPOSE the remaining information should be retained (sourced, obviously) in the wider article.) Blue Edits (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to organise articles by priority. However, when I look upon a random selection of country per year articles, they all seem to me equally badly sourced, and I find it difficult to give one article priority over another....

One way to do it would be year by year in chronological order. Which is basically what I'm doing at the moment. But I'm afraid of fixing deadlines because I cannot promise to be available for Wikipedia for X hours per month. Also, sources for some claims and countries might be found quickly and easily, others take more time. The amount of time necessary for each article is hard to foresee. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just a simpler version of the moss list then? Basically just a list of articles that need to be fixed and the specific issue. Theirs is bot-generated, but having a way to see what's been worked on and being able to pick and choose what to work on might be a good balance between freedom to edit and a sense of progression? Blue Edits (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with that! --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We also have a recent AfD discussion where the closing consensus was to redirect some stub junior country in year articles, so this practice has some teeth: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020. I wonder if additional information could be added to this table to help mark articles as "reviewed". For example, a quick determination of "national final-likely expansion" (keep as stub) or "internal selection-likely no expansion" (keep as redirect or uncreated). Pinging @ActuallyNeverHappened02: for thoughts on how to implement. Grk1011 (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate you pinging me, as this discussion has introduced some potentially extremely useful info to add into the table. I'm thinking of a quality+importance system to add to the table similar to the existing content assessment scale, so there could be markings for redirects, stubs, good articles, featured articles, etc., and also markings for "expansion required", or "sources needed", or just "keep as redirect" (like articles with little to no actual sources). It'll be useful to iron out the details eventually, but as of now, I feel as if this is the way to go. Requesting thoughts from the community! Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 18:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

For everybody who wants to help with digging for references on the country-per-year pages, I've begun making lists of suitable possible sources (books, digital newspaper archives, newspapers and TV magazines etc.): User:EurovisionLibrarian/Sources. Feel free to use it. For some countries, the list is more expanded than for others but that's work in progress. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Permanent slogan and the infobox

With the news that "United by Music" is now the permanent slogan, I would like to raise a question, namely what to do with the infobox's 'slogan' entry from 2024 onwards? Obligatorily including this slogan in the infobox for every future ESCyr page can be a potential waste of space. Pdhadam (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I find this to be an issue as it's only on one page each year. Grk1011 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call three words a “waste of space”, but it would sure be a tedious repetition over time; which is why I find it a nuisance that you cannot insert it anywhere in the Eurovision Song Contest infobox instead, so as to avoid repeating it in the year-by-year articles. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The exclusion of a slogan from the infoboxes of future contests may mean that the real slogan doesn't exist, but it certainly does exist. I'd also add template:Infobox song contest 'theme' parameter for the template:Infobox television as the whole contest now has a permanent slogan. Smthngnw (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 "country by year" detailed semi results

Can I please get some additional thoughts on the inclusion of these new semi detailed voting results tables for the two semis of ESC 2023 contest (see Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023#Detailed voting results as an example). Originally I had removed these new additions as I didn't believe them to be backed up by the refs, since the usual breakdown tables weren't added to the respective Eurovision.tv pages ([1]), however on closer look after my deletions were reverted I noticed that the remaining countries had been added to the bottom of the "Points given" list. The assumption would be that the order of these would match the rest of the televote places (11th to 15th/16th), although it is not explicitly stated, however the order of these remaining countries does change on each country's page. Essentially I'm torn as to whether the additions within these pages is sufficiently clear to allow the new tables to be added. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The points table now are also the actual rankings meaning that the list don't have to be numbered if it's already in the order. This is how the website already displays the rankings:

• 2016 SF 1, 2016 SF 2, 2016 GF
• 2017 SF 1, 2017 SF 2, 2017 GF
• 2018 SF 1, 2018 SF 2, 2018 GF
• 2019 SF 1, 2019 SF 2, 2019 GF
• 2021 SF 1, 2021 SF 2, 2021 GF
• 2022 SF 1, 2022 SF 2, 2022 GF
• 2023 GF

𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰 ^💬 23:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the website doesn't say it's ranking the remainder, I think the above, though likely, doesn't pass WP:V. I had asked Smthngnw to prove that it's correct and thus far have only been presented with what amount to educated guesses based on other articles or pages and WP:OR. There does not seem to be a reference that specifically says "countries in this list are in order of total votes given" or something like that. We already identify the 1-12 points, it's unclear what this table even adds. It shows that the other 5 nations didn't' award points via televote? Isn't that already clear? Grk1011 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on Smthngnw's contribution it does appear that the order is intentional. If you compare the "Points given by" list to the detailed breakdown below it in each case you can see that there is a direct correlation of the order for the countries ranked 11th and below. As for Grk1011's question, the purpose of the new tables would be to explicitly state the rankings achieved by the remaining 4 to 6 countries in the semi-finals in each country's televote. However as previously mentioned above there is not an explicit statement that the remaining countries are in order, so it's certainly a grey area as to how to proceed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I support the addition. It is obvious to anybody that the order is intentional and that they are indeed the rankings, I just don't see the point of the "points awarded by country" sections since they are just a simplified version of the same data — IмSтevan ^talk 13:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The point of the two sections is consistency. The detailed results sections will only exist from 2015 onwards (with some exceptions), however every individual country by year article (apart from those for 1956) will contain the points awarded to/by sections. It makes more sense to keep a section in a consistent format that will apply to 99.9% of articles than to try and merge them for a small section of articles just because we have more information available for later editions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: When these were being added the nowrap template was messed up in the tables (closing brackets aren't there) so if anybody with bot access can add them, that'd be great (example) — IмSтevan ^talk 11:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Italy in the ESC by year templates

I've recently edited some of the country in the ESC 1956 articles, adding details about the NFs etc. I've also come across Italy. Currently, Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest 1956 is a redirect to Sanremo Music Festival 1956, and the same seems to be true for all Italy in the ESC articles until 1997, at least. However, Italy is not linked in the Template of the ESC 1956, and the same is true for all templates until 1997, as far as I can see. Which means that details of Italy's NFs remain invisible for anyone who wants to access country per year information via this template – despite the fact that the Sanremo articles basically have the same function and the same type of information as other country per year articles. Surely, this must have been discussed already somewhere and there must be a reason why the Italy links are not included in the template but I couldn't find anything on it. Personally, I think it's sad that the often very detailed Sanremo articles are invisible to readers when using ESC per year articles as a starting point. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I’d also like to hear more about previous discussions on this. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The Italian "country by year" articles will link to the Sanremo articles only between 1956 and 1966 and 1997, when Sanremo is the credited national selection method. All other years the articles link to Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest, as is common practice for internal selections or other methods where very little information is present to justify a stand-alone article. Additionally, adding redirects to navboxes is a violation of WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, which states that it is preferable to leave out redirects from navboxes as it can lead to self-redirects. There may be exceptions to this, however I am not sure they are fulfilled in this scenario, given that Sanremo is not merely Italy's national selection process for Eurovision but is a much larger cultural institution that stands on its own. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I support adding the links redirecting to the Sanremo editions used as finals, provided we mention Eurovision in those articles to avoid confusing readers. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification about the redirects in navigation templates.

One solution could be linking directly to the Sanremo articles in navigational templates in a similar (but inverse) way to what has been done for several Swedish articles like Sweden 1993 (both the Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest template and the Melodifestivalen template link to the same page, and the page includes both templates). This would avoid having a redirect in a template.

The second option brought up by IvanScrooge98, using the redirects nevertheless (if I understood correctly), also has its charm but I also understand that this is not the officially preferred option. In any case, I agree with having a "At Eurovision" section in those pages which are the ultimate target of the template links.

The third option would be creating a separate Italy-per-year page where a summary of Sanremo is a section, like in the Italy and Sweden per year pages from the 2010s and 2020s. This is a technically clean and consistent option whereas it leads to redundant information being present in several pages. Plus, in years where not enough separate information apart from the NF is available, a separate Italy-per-year page wouldn't be possible, leading again to the invisibility of Sanremo in the ESC templates.

Finally, we could also set links to the templates using either option 1 or 2 as a short-term solution, and aiming for option 3 as a long-term solution, i.e. a separate Italy-per-year page with enough unique information to be a standalone article. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 is obviously preferred I would say, it's the method we use for present-day articles so it would make sense that we would do the same here. On option 2, I don't agree with shoehorning a Eurovision section into the existing Sanremo articles. Although they are tangentially linked, and mentioning Eurovision would be suitable up to a degree (although this isn't even done in the more recent articles), information like the points tables etc. would not be appropriate for inclusion in the Sanremo articles. As for option one, technically the Melodifestivalen template is badly linked and the links to the Sweden in ESC articles should be removed because again they are two separate contests (although in this case there is a more direct link given that Melodifestivalen has never existed without a corresponding Swedish participation at ESC).

I suppose as a compromise, call it option 4 for now, there could be a case to be made that redirects to other standalone articles, e.g. Sanremo, could be included in the navboxes, but not links to articles which redirect to any country in ESC articles. In this case the 1956-1966 and 1997 Italy in ESC articles would be linked but any other years would not, with a view to eventually flesh out these articles to a substantial degree that would justify a standalone article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. And to clarify, what I meant by “mentioning Eurovision” is simply a phrase stating that the festival was used to determine the Italian entry for Eurovision, since as you have pointed out the event has always existed in its own right (nor do I think that we would find any other particular information). See what I did at Sanremo Music Festival 2024. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I can also live with that option 4 provided Eurovision is mentioned in the articles. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A new color on the map

Example of how the change could look if the chosen color was light blue   Countries that haven't selected their entrant or song   Countries that participated in the past but will not in 2025   Countries that participated in the past but whose participation status in 2025 is unknown

There was a discussion on Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Romania_on_the_map that raised a good point; maybe there should be a color that depicts countries that have competed in the past but whose participation status we have no definite information on. For example, Romania right now is colored in the same fashion as most of North Africa and Middle East, which kind of makes no sense as Romania is surely more likely to compete in 2024 or put out a statement about not competing than countries in those afermentioned regions. I have created a map of an example of how this could look very early in the season, as this change would be at its most useful during that time. Thoughts? @IvanScrooge98: — IмSтevan ^talk 08:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea, I mean if it was up to me we'd have like 20 colors x| Although I think maybe we should retain the current gray for uncertain countries and use a darker gray for countries that never participated, this particular shade of blue is kinda eye-piercing Aleki37 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Example of how the change could look if the chosen color was grey (suggested by @Aleki37:)   Countries that haven't selected their entrant or song   Countries that participated in the past but will not in 2025   Countries that participated in the past but whose participation status in 2025 is unknown

I used light/pastel blue simply cuz it's my fav color and it is very distinct from the colors we currently use. I'm fine with it being grey as long as it is easily distinguished from that darker grey — IмSтevan ^talk 14:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay after making the map with that grey suggestion I'm not really feeling it. I did make the blue a bit darker in my original suggestion @Aleki37: — IмSтevan ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with Romania being the same color as others who have participated in the past. The caption can just be adjusted to read something like Countries that participated in the past but have either not confirmed for 2024 yet or will not participate in 2024. Grk1011 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong opinion on this but I think it would make more sense to use a different color for non-confirmed countries, if we decide to color them. Might a shade of orange be another alternative? (Considering readability for the visually impaired, which I don’t know much about.) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's why I decided to use blue, orange would resemble yellow too much — IмSтevan ^talk 17:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Imo the light/dark grey version is a better. Blue gives me a feeling of too much information when there's actually not that much (in the sense that countries that haven't confirmed usually haven't given info) and gives a big amount of visibility to countries who haven't even decided yet. I also feel like it drowns the green ones. The grey is more neutral, attracts the eye less while still enhancing and giving the information to the reader.

Also, think of notifying other wikis next time. This map is used not only on the english wiki and having a heads up and a say on this debate is useful. I'm French and heard about this from a random tweet.

Yoyo360 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Is there a way to notify other wikis automatically? — IмSтevan ^talk 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is an automatic way to do it. But at least you can try to start a discussion and redirect here on other wikis (if all is too much then at least the main ones) and hope to get some answers. French Eurovision wikiproject is kinda dead so I'm not sure you'll have other comments from French contibs. I'm suggesting. Because seeing blue pop out of nowhere is kind of a surprise when pretty much you did not ask for it and nobody told you. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: We'll then start using blue in 2025 since we'll have all wikis seeing it on the map from the very start — IмSтevan ^talk 15:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's a unilateral decision as well. As I said, the map is used by several wikis, and this deserves to be a bit more of a common decision. Besides me, only three users have replied here and that absolutely does not make this decision close to a consensus to be implemented on more than 30 wikis. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: It'd be really difficult to get that many wikis into a single discussion. If other wikis want a different map, they are more than welcome to upload a different one to commons and avoid the new color completely. I made a 2025 map already on Draft:Eurovision Song Contest 2025 with the new color so that if other wikis want to, they can add the parameter, but you're totally right on the 2024, it was without notice and sudden, so we'll keep Romania grey there — IмSтevan ^talk 16:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that you're the one wiki wanting a change, maybe it would be wiser considering to put your map with blue under another name than the usual "ESC 20XX map" then and leave the no blue one under the usual name. Less surprises for everyone. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly a surprise when it's uploaded 6 months in advance — IмSтevan ^talk 16:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, your decision is unilateral and without consulting other wikis. If you want to do something "else", then it's only fair for you to leave the main "name" to the others and do your thing. And I just want to remind you, I'm not even saying your suggestion is a bad idea altogether. I just dislike the blue and like the two shades of grey much better. I just think it is better for everyone to be consulted first. Besides, you've uploaded the map months ahead yeah... but who even knows that? Many people will come around in March to realise you've put blue on the map. I do call that a surprise.

My point is: you're not the decision maker. Not with so few supports. If other people agree (I do partially) then good for you. But don't push your decision on everyone. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

One more argument for my preference for grey: grey is the ultimate colour for "Don't know" or "No data". When a country hasn't confirmed, why does it matter if it has already participated or not? Morocco would be coloured when it has zero chance to come back and if israel withdraws and suddenly all Arabic countries participate, why does it matter if they have participated before or not? (I know it's unlikely it's only for the sake of the example). Grey makes less difference, putting all "No news" into roughly the same level. Colour at this stage is pointless. It's saying "Oh yeah we have no news but they've already entered". Why does it matter? The only case a distinction would matter is a Slovenia 2014/Romania 2024 case. Otherwise, I feel it's just not that important. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If others agree, we can use shades of grey, I'm certainly not the only editor — IмSтevan ^talk 17:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I personally prefer the current shade of blue, looks light enough for a “no data” and distinct enough from the gray countries. I’m not convinced two shades of gray would suit the thing, in which case I’d return to the previous convention of using a single gray hue for both. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion might be slightly unpopular here: I think the current maps are perfectly fine and I don't see any need nor any benefit if another colour is added. The current maps for upcoming contests already have four different colour divisions: one for countries that have never participated, one for countries that have participated but won't in the upcoming edition, one for participating countries that have not selected their song/artist yet, and one for participating countries that have already selected something. If I understood correctly, having an additional colour for "countries who possibly might participate in the upcoming edition or maybe won't, no-one knows for sure" would make that a fifth colour. Five colours are already a little bit confusing.

And as for the discussion about which colours should be used: I don't mind, as long as they are sufficiently different from each other (also for colour-blind readers) and respect MOS:COLOUR. See also the guidelines on Colours in maps. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we really counting light grey there? There's gonna be 4 colors in the legend — IмSтevan ^talk 20:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, even not in the legend, grey is still there and conveys some information Yoyo360 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the existing colours convey enough information. The current colours showing confirmed countries and non-participating countries work well and can generally be backed by a source. I think simply using grey as a neutral colour for countries that haven't confirmed anything works well and doesn't need to be mentioned in the table key as only the other colours seem relevant to the article. Additionally, this map is not only used by English Wikipedia, so any changes would impact Wikipedia across different languages that have been using the same format for years, a format that in my opinion, has had no issues. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 03:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the color adds important context to readers, especially those unfamiliar with the contest. Romania this year (2024) in its current status (might compete but might not) is a great example. An average reader will look at the map, see that Romania is grey, see the legend has 2024 participants and countries that used to compete, Romania belonging to neither group and logically assume Romania is just not a country that competes in Eurovision, on the same level of involvement as Middle Eastern countries colored in the same fashion. We of course as fans know everything, but if you remove yourself from context, I hope you can see why I consider this a good addition. And no, the note above the number of participants is not as prominent as the map.

It also works in the context of giving the reader a rough feel of the reach of the contest in the period between May and November, when the map is slowly being colored in, so they know roughly what to expect in the end. — IмSтevan ^talk 03:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

And Romania 2024 (similar to Slovenia 2014) is actually the only type of context where such a supplementary color is useful. Otherwise it is not. We don't need to color the 50 countries blue from the start. Yoyo360 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

French ESC contributors for the past 10 years here! I agree with my fellow friend on the fact that your decision was made unilaterally without talking about it to anybody up until this day. Prior to you making these modifications that would impact the entirety of the ESC Wiki Portal, you indeed should have opened the door for a debate on the issue.

That being said, I personally do not consent using such a color chart, since it confuses users and carries way too much information onto the map. The point I might agree on would be the addition of darker shades of grey, but yet again - nobody noticed over the past decade, even under the event of Slovenia 2014 participation, when they were still negotiating with the EBU after the participating broadcasters list had been released.

To sum it up - it is theorically a decent-wise idea that should have been first submitted to the English ESC Wikipedia hub, debated over, reworked/adjusted and eventually applied if all stakeholders agreed on using it. Next time, please feel free to come talk to us before deciding that "[we'll] start using it fron 2025 onwards" Wikays^{Any questions?} 07:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Having read the full discussion here I would tend to agree that making a distinction in this case which would require an additional colour isn't necessary. A map should not be used to convey information solely by itself, it should always be backed up by prose within the article body, given that a map is never going to be able to provide the context necessary to convey the full picture. Additionally as was mentioned above, adding a new colour to cover every country that has ever participated right from the start seems like a lot of work for what is quite a rare scenario we find ourselves in this year. There's nothing particularly wrong with showing Romania in grey right now given we have the key/legend that shows exactly what the other colours represent, and in the long term the creation of a new colour for this rare scenario (which has only happened twice) really isn't going to serve much purpose in the long term. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Young Dancers and Musicians cleanup

Hi all- I'd like to start some cleanup on the sub-articles for {{Eurovision Young Dancers}} and {{Eurovision Young Musicians}}. I feel that the most of the "country" articles are stubs that scatter information around and have no hope of being a "full picture"; they are WP:PERMASTUBs. These articles were made to fulfill the "objectives" of our WikiProject (as seen on our main page); however, those goals are specific to the Eurovision Song Contest, so applying them to other, less notable, or even just less complicated/advanced contests has gotten us here. I can think of two options we could pursue: create a list article for both Dancers and Musicians (like List of Eurovision Song Contest entries (1956–2003)) and redirect them there or redirect the articles to an expanded List of countries in the Eurovision Young Dancers and List of countries in the Eurovision Young Musicians (I'm not sure what the expansion would look like yet, however). I'm open to other ideas or even no change if need be. For reference, many of the articles are like this: Italy in the Eurovision Young Musicians. Grk1011 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Grk1011! Looking at these articles I definitely concur that a clean-up would be a good idea and I would certainly welcome it. Personally I think that two list articles for Musicians and Dancers, similar to the ESC entries lists, would be the easiest and more concise way forward. For both Musicians and Dancers well over 30 countries have taken part at least once, and a large group of these have taken part on only a handful of occasions, and I don't think having an article with 30/40+ tables, some with only one or two entries, would be a particularly good idea or particularly useful for readers. I'm open to continue discussing if there are any other options to be presented however. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: I saw that you found my draft. I think I'm in a bit over my head. I had planned to use a modified table from the Eurovision entries lists, but after I finished 1985, I realized the other years are not as straightforward in terms of copying and updating each year's table to the format. The contest's website is also redirected to a summary page at ebu.ch, so I'll have to take a peek at the internet archive to find the refs before that occurred. I have never seen the event before, so I'm also having some trouble defining the starting parameters for the page and tables. I'm more than happy to do the grunt work if you or someone else could help me set the article's structure and scope. Grk1011 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I stumbled upon that, hope you don't mind me tweaking it a little bit! I also have never seen the event before, and it does appear that we can't really take the same approach to populating this draft as we have done for the ESC/JESC lists. Digging into the sources available through the internet archive for the previous official website there are definitely gaps in the information available, e.g. running order, full results etc. In some cases I can see that because of how the website was constructed this actually causes issues when trying to view the website through the archive platform. Perhaps the simplest method right now would be to just list the participants by year and by country, removing running order information and placements until we can figure out how best to present that? I've mocked up an example below. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Eurovision Young Dancers 1985

Country	#	Entrant(s)
Belgium	1	Ariane van de Vyver and Ben Huys
Finland	1	Anneke Lönnroth
France	1	Christine Landault and Stephane Elizabe
Germany	1	Stefanie Eckhof
Italy	1	Sabrina Vitangeli
Netherlands	1	Jeanette den Blijker and Ruben Brugman
Norway	1	Arne Fagerholt
Spain	1	Arantxa Argüelles
Sweden	1	Mia Stagh and Göran Svalberg
Switzerland	1	Xavier Ferla
United Kingdom	1	Maria Almeida and Errol Pickford

Hello everyone, I agree that a complete overhaul is needed on the "country" articles of which a larger number were created by myself for the reason given above by Grk1011. It has obviously become apparent that nearly all of these can't be expanded that much from a simple stub article, so I have concentrated my time more recently on improving and keeping the main articles of these "other, less notable" contests updated as best I can. I am still actively looking to fill in the gaps of information that remain, as no official EBU brooklet is available (some of which now have limited access) for some contests (notably the full list of participating countries which sent a non-qualified entry, identifying those that presented the editions of EYM in 1994 and 1996, the jury members in 1996 and general broadcast info such as commentators for both EYD/EYM, all of these have been very difficult to find so any help would be greatly appreciated). As Sims2aholic8 has said above, there are large gaps also on the former official website so some infomation may never be found especially as these contests are not so widely covered by the media. Fort esc (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Songs by language

I like the "songs by language" section of Slovenia's ESC participations. Should the same format be used for the other countries? 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰 ^💬 01:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you've done harm in highlighting that section. It's possibly against WP:SYNTH, whereby information is gathered without citation from already existing content. I suspect it'll be deleted on this basis doktorb _words^deeds 03:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is neither an original research nor a publication. No conclusions (other than percentages) can be drawn from the data.

Also there're no problems in ESC languages page. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰 ^💬 06:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:CALC states that routine calculations do not count as WP:OR, which I believe is the case here, given it's literally just summing the languages used in the various entries. However there could be a point made that this contravenes WP:NOTSTATS; I'm not exactly sure how relevant this section is, and additionally when taken out of context it could appear misleading given that for the majority of countries and the majority of entries from those countries in past editions there was a language rule in place. In the case of Slovenia this covers 1993 to 1998, so only 5 entries, but for example with Germany all entries between 1956 and 1972 and 1978 and 1998 were required to be in German. Presenting the information in this manner kinda loses this context. From a consistency point as well it wouldn't make any sense to include on all articles, e.g. the United Kingdom and Azerbaijan where every entry has been in English, and even the likes of Ireland where all but one entry has been in English. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

One additional point to raise would be around how the information is presented. For example with the section on the Estonia article the 2008 entry was performed in three languages but an entry in this table has been created for each language, which skews the overall percentages of the languages performed. Estonia has had 28 entries but the table in the "by languages" section sums to 32, because alongside 2008 it also includes the 1993 and 2020 entries, which aren't considered official entries. The percentages in the pie chart then are skewed, and instead of 59.38% of Estonian entries being performed in English it should actually be 64.29% (18 entries in English to 28 entries total). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: WP:Synth and personally I just don't like it — IмSтevan ^talk 13:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Returnees

In the same fashion as with Eurovision by year articles, shouldn't national finals state which acts are returning to the contest, like I did here? — IмSтevan ^talk 05:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: And also, should other national final formats be included in the list (for example, Konstrakta previously competing in Beovizija as a part of Zemlja Gruva in 2008 and '09 and then returning to PzE)? And then you can raise a question if other countries' national finals should be mentioned (like Martina Vrbos which competed in Dora in 2010, but is now competing in PzE in a different country) — IмSтevan ^talk 05:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Including information about returning acts in national finals, as seen in your example, would be useful. It adds historical context and enriches the articles' content. Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I do believe that NF returnee information is relevant to the article, and this has already been included on other articles that have gone through the good article process (e.g. Iceland 2020). I also believe that information regarding artists which had previously competed to represent other countries, or represented other countries at ESC, is relevant information to add. However any information that is subsequently added also needs to be sourced and verifiable, and we would need sources that explicitly state that a given artist or individual participated in a given event in previous years. It's important that we avoid any information synthesis issues here, e.g. having one source which states that an artist is competing in an event and another source which states that they were a member of a group that competed in a previous event, but no sources stating that they were a member of that group during that event. Anything that is added without relevant and clear sources would constitute an original research breach. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this constitutes synth/original research:

• Zorja competed in 2022
• Zorja is competing in 2024

Therefore

• Zorja is returning to the contest in 2024 after competing in 2022

— IмSтevan ^talk 13:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No, in the above case there is no OR or SYNTH issue. However something like below using your example would be:

• Ref 1: Konstrakta competed in and won PzE in 2022
• Ref 2: Konstrakta/Ana Đurić was a member of Zemlja Gruva
• Ref 3: Zemlja Gruva competed in Beovizija in 2008 and 2009
• Using these three refs then to state that Konstrakta competed in Beovizija in 2008 and 2009 would be an OR/SYNTH issue because you're using two sources (refs 2 and 3) to make a claim that is not present in either one (i.e. that Konstrakta/Ana Đurić was in the line-up of Zemlja Gruva that participated in Beovizija).

I'm not saying that there are not refs out there that can be used to avoid an OR/SYNTH issue, I'm just stating this policy for the avoidance of doubt going forward, since I have personally had issues with finding reliable refs for other articles where similar statements are made and I don't wish the same issues to present themselves down the line. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That is true — IмSтevan ^talk 04:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Comment: @IvanScrooge98: Maybe we should have all those references at the end of the paragraph? Like the Iceland 2020 article mentioned above (which is a good article) — IмSтevan ^talk 03:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably. But as I stated in the edit summary, I'm not sure whether it is even worth mentioning all these past national final competitors. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: There's a problem with Konstrakta's part since she's not mentioned in Beovizija 2008 and 2009 articles, since she was a member of a band — IмSтevan ^talk 18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Uhm, you’re right. We need to look for a source specifying the band members; if I find one I’ll add it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Already done — IмSтevan ^talk 20:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources list

A discussion about Eurovision sources is ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Sources. Grk1011 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Result tables

Most users come to see the results tables. I propose adding Jury and televoting scores to the tables under contest overview.

The main reason for this change would be their sortable nature, making them more user-friendly compared to their detailed voting results counterparts. There is also enough space available for the inclusion of these two columns.2A00:801:7B5:BB3B:8855:3381:CD56:3BA3 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better to create separate pages for complex "Detailed Voting Results" with all ranking tables. Full results of a contest in one page is much more convenient than the existing system. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰 ^💬 12:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

On what exactly is the claim "most users come to see the results tables" based?

I would like to disagree with the proposed changes. The "contest overview" is, as its name says, an OVERVIEW section, and should not be overloaded with detailed results. For those who really want to check the detailed results, the section "Detailed voting results" provides a quick way of accessing them by clicking on the section in the menu at the top of the page.

The principal desire for sortable tables doesn't mean the location of the tables have to changed. It would only imply changing the format of the tables in order to make them sortable.

And as for standalone articles, I have my doubts whether they would be fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notability as per WP:NOTE. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Most other ESC related pages, such as national finals, typically display the jury and televote results separately in the primary, easily accessible voting table. The compact layout and sorting feature facilitate comparing the overall jury scores with the overall televotes, offering a clear OVERVIEW of how the contest determined its winner.

The detailed voting results provide a more comprehensive perspective on how each individual country voted. But this detailed breakdown is less accessible and less conducive to comparing overall scores, as it lacks sorting capabilities and can be overly cluttered for the average user.

85.230.223.46 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)  Comment: I agree. With the removal of the language collumn from the show tables, they could find a place there — IмSтevan ^talk 16:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)